Classical Liberal Sage
- Jun 22, 2013
- Reaction score
- Mid-West USA
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
THAT is exactly right. I didn't refer to the First Amendment. PERIOD!You didn't,
NO! :dohyou inferred it by using "freedom of expression" which is another way of saying "freedom of speech" because the Supreme Court has in the past viewed expression as free speech. Further inferred by using a reference to a fictional government body that is normally used by the right to infer an intrusion on the First Amendment.
This is the problem I find with most advocates of Left-leaning extremism, especially those molding public opinion in the Media. Taking someone's words and reinterpreting them to tell other people what was meant by the statements, and then passing their interpretations off as facts rather than opinion.
I told you what I meant in my prior reply. I work with words every day. I understand their use, and so try to word my responses and comments as carefully as I can to reflect what I mean when I say something. Had I been referring to a Constitutional violation I would state "First Amendment rights."You may not have meant it....but you were writing about the First Amendment in the end.
However, none of the rights listed in the Constitution were created by that document. The document was written to insure those inherent and pre-existing rights would not be trampled on by the new government they were creating.
So when I am speaking about government action to deny or compel, then I refer to the Constitution.
However, THIS discussion is about the actions of people using threats of some kind to stifle free expression. That is not a constitutional issue, it is a societal one, trying to de-platform views one does not agree with.
So don't tell me what I was trying to say or what I meant. I said exactly what I meant. :coffeepap: